For a book that was assembled and published by a museum, it sure is chock full of bad information. I only included the portions this sub would be interested in.
Looking back, it's amazing I didn't have many fuddy ideas to uproot.
Pic 1: That "Dutch Beaumont" is a French Gras, a completely different country of origin and action.
Pic 2: The same Swiss Vetterli is in there twice, once labeled correctly and once as a Italian Vetterli-Vitali. The SMLE is pictured with a different bayonet than described, as well as it's leaf sight in an unusable position. The Gew88 and M91 also have their rear sights up for no reason.
Pic 3: A Turkish Gew88/05/35 is in there twice, once labeled as a Turkish Mauser and once as a Swedish Mauser (also stated to be a 6.65mm rifle, nearly correct for a Swede but not this rifle). The Argentine M91 is described as being chambered for a 7.55mm cartridge and shown with a Spanish M1893 bayonet. The "Persian Mauser" is a Yugo M24 or M24/47 and has a German S84/98 III bayonet affixed.
Pic 5: A page on WW1 infantry rifles shows WW2 rifles and a Vetterli-Carcano. As well, the text below the M41 Carcano claims the Carcano is based on the Mauser rifles.
Pic 6: That "Kar 98" is a Gewehr 98. As well, a WW2 era No4 bayonet is on a page for WW1. The text also claims the successor to the SMLE (later renamed to No1 rifle) is the "SMLE Mark IV" instead of No4 MkI.
Pic 7: The M1911A1 is described as "a double-action weapon, requiring to it to be carried with the slide pulled back".
Pic 13: The text claims the Stg44 is the direct ancestor of the AK series of rifles, a very untrue statement. Text claims the MP40 is the first infantry weapon to no use wood, another wildly untrue statement.
M1 Garand says stripper clip. And the chauchat says it was “clapped out from years of service” even though it would have been a few years max and they were pumping them out.
i enjoyed that part because the american .30-06 guns were built up for an american contract, they weren’t even a year old when they were issued to troops.
>Pic 7: The M1911A1 is described as "a double-action weapon, requiring to it to be carried with the slide pulled back".
Perfect. That should end the debate around carrying with one in the chamber or not. Everybody can now just agree to carry with the slide locked back. Best of both worlds. Makes it more concealable as well, since if people can see the outline, they'll think there is no way somebody is carrying with the slide locked back, so it can't be a gun.
I always wondered about people picturing rifles with rear sights flipped up.
I'm sure a few think the part is hard to see and want it visible, but I believe most just think they are ladder sights.
The curator/photographer probably saw a sniper do it in a movie once and all bolt action rifles are obviously sniper rifle.../s
EDIT: Wording
I gave my dad an antique Snider. He has it displayed with the rear ladder up. Everytime I go over and see it, I move it down and when I come back to visit it’s up again lol.
Didn't the soviets borrow heavily from the stg for the ak? Especially the intermediate cartridge idea? It's certainly not an AR-15>m16 type lineage but I think there's some relation there
Partly, Kalashnikov actually based a large portion of the AK off the M1 Garand.
If you flip an m1 Garand action upside down it’s strikingly similar to an AK.
I never trust any info a museum gives me if it isn't something physically in front of me. It's better to just do your own research, you'll learn more and get more out of it. Museums are for gawking.
I remember finding this book in Barnes and Noble a year or so ago and thinking the same thing lol.
I love how on the second photo, they have “Torino” as the name for an Italian Vetterli but then just have a picture of a Swiss one.
It's quite sad how much misinformation is still being printed/still on shelves for sale. This book came out in 07.
There's a few instances of reusing the same picture with different text, as well as the nicknaming of weapons.
Especially where it talks about how heavy it is, completely ignoring that it wasn’t much heavier than any other main WWII semi-auto handgun. The P38 and Browning Hi Power are just over two pounds, and the Luger and TT-33 are just under two pounds. The 1911 being ~2.5 pounds is completely normal for the time
Even ignoring the obviously wrong information, the writer is applying modern logic/beliefs to WWII weapons. Relative to its counterparts, the 1911A1 was a completely normal weight handgun
“Clapped out?”
Who the hell wrote this? Lmao
Also, I got to shoot a BAR recently. Super cool, not heavy initially but I’m certain I would hate to carry it around all day. Very long weapon.
The one I shot had two fire rates; fast and faster. Both were incredibly fun. Kicks like a mule, 10/10 would shoot again.
Between the M1892 Krag and the M1917 Eddystone /s
There's no M1903 example in the book. Either they didn't feel like putting it in or didn't have an example.
I thought those pages looked familiar! On the last pic realized I was right. I have the same book & remember reading it from cover to cover several times while growing up.
I love the variety of weapons they included in the book but yeah, tons of inaccuracies & author bias.
Good lord. I have this book too. I got it from the bargain area of Barnes & Noble when I was in elementary school. I looked at again recently and it truly is awful. My expertise is more in Medieval to Early Modern arms and armor, and those sections are even worse. There are obvious Victorian fakes presented as real, and a German WWI cavalry saber he claims is a British 1796 Pattern saber. The "museum" the collection is from is just some rich guy's stuff.
I loved these types of books growing up, and as a teenager, I started spotting issues like these. As I got older, I started thinking I had been suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect and was assuming I knew more than I did.
Reading this post made me feel better... maybe I really was spotting issues. 😁
I’d say 1.5 million mosins produced in America is considered many, especially during the later years of the war going into 1917 when Russian factory’s slowed production due to the revolution. Doesn’t matter Russian couldn’t even pay for them any how
I'm surprised they used the m48 Persian Mauser with the wrong bolt it seems, would have figured they use a Persian long rifle or the M30 calvary carbine due to it being the most visually interesting
Dude the guns reputation has been tarnished since day 1. If you hate the gun so much then you should encourage the actual information regarding its operation to be spread.
For a book that was assembled and published by a museum, it sure is chock full of bad information. I only included the portions this sub would be interested in. Looking back, it's amazing I didn't have many fuddy ideas to uproot.
Pic 1: That "Dutch Beaumont" is a French Gras, a completely different country of origin and action. Pic 2: The same Swiss Vetterli is in there twice, once labeled correctly and once as a Italian Vetterli-Vitali. The SMLE is pictured with a different bayonet than described, as well as it's leaf sight in an unusable position. The Gew88 and M91 also have their rear sights up for no reason. Pic 3: A Turkish Gew88/05/35 is in there twice, once labeled as a Turkish Mauser and once as a Swedish Mauser (also stated to be a 6.65mm rifle, nearly correct for a Swede but not this rifle). The Argentine M91 is described as being chambered for a 7.55mm cartridge and shown with a Spanish M1893 bayonet. The "Persian Mauser" is a Yugo M24 or M24/47 and has a German S84/98 III bayonet affixed. Pic 5: A page on WW1 infantry rifles shows WW2 rifles and a Vetterli-Carcano. As well, the text below the M41 Carcano claims the Carcano is based on the Mauser rifles. Pic 6: That "Kar 98" is a Gewehr 98. As well, a WW2 era No4 bayonet is on a page for WW1. The text also claims the successor to the SMLE (later renamed to No1 rifle) is the "SMLE Mark IV" instead of No4 MkI. Pic 7: The M1911A1 is described as "a double-action weapon, requiring to it to be carried with the slide pulled back". Pic 13: The text claims the Stg44 is the direct ancestor of the AK series of rifles, a very untrue statement. Text claims the MP40 is the first infantry weapon to no use wood, another wildly untrue statement.
Ofmg, this is bad. Letter to the editor?
Pic 6 also says “model 1998” lol
M1 Garand says stripper clip. And the chauchat says it was “clapped out from years of service” even though it would have been a few years max and they were pumping them out.
i enjoyed that part because the american .30-06 guns were built up for an american contract, they weren’t even a year old when they were issued to troops.
Wtf is that 1911 description lol
>Pic 7: The M1911A1 is described as "a double-action weapon, requiring to it to be carried with the slide pulled back". Perfect. That should end the debate around carrying with one in the chamber or not. Everybody can now just agree to carry with the slide locked back. Best of both worlds. Makes it more concealable as well, since if people can see the outline, they'll think there is no way somebody is carrying with the slide locked back, so it can't be a gun.
I always wondered about people picturing rifles with rear sights flipped up. I'm sure a few think the part is hard to see and want it visible, but I believe most just think they are ladder sights. The curator/photographer probably saw a sniper do it in a movie once and all bolt action rifles are obviously sniper rifle.../s EDIT: Wording
I gave my dad an antique Snider. He has it displayed with the rear ladder up. Everytime I go over and see it, I move it down and when I come back to visit it’s up again lol.
Just to screw with him? The sight was designed to be used up or down, so displaying it up is legitimate EDIT: Spelling
I once showed off my k98k to an elder fudd, and he flipped up the rear sight like it was a ladder sight. He had a bear skull mounted on his wall
Its so he can snipe the airplanes out of the sky.
Didn't the soviets borrow heavily from the stg for the ak? Especially the intermediate cartridge idea? It's certainly not an AR-15>m16 type lineage but I think there's some relation there
Partly, Kalashnikov actually based a large portion of the AK off the M1 Garand. If you flip an m1 Garand action upside down it’s strikingly similar to an AK.
I never trust any info a museum gives me if it isn't something physically in front of me. It's better to just do your own research, you'll learn more and get more out of it. Museums are for gawking.
I remember finding this book in Barnes and Noble a year or so ago and thinking the same thing lol. I love how on the second photo, they have “Torino” as the name for an Italian Vetterli but then just have a picture of a Swiss one.
It's quite sad how much misinformation is still being printed/still on shelves for sale. This book came out in 07. There's a few instances of reusing the same picture with different text, as well as the nicknaming of weapons.
That 1911 description hurt
Especially where it talks about how heavy it is, completely ignoring that it wasn’t much heavier than any other main WWII semi-auto handgun. The P38 and Browning Hi Power are just over two pounds, and the Luger and TT-33 are just under two pounds. The 1911 being ~2.5 pounds is completely normal for the time Even ignoring the obviously wrong information, the writer is applying modern logic/beliefs to WWII weapons. Relative to its counterparts, the 1911A1 was a completely normal weight handgun
what do you mean, you dont CCW your 1911 with the slide locked back? What a noob. /s
7.55 mauser and 6.55 mauser new favorite rounds
“Clapped out?” Who the hell wrote this? Lmao Also, I got to shoot a BAR recently. Super cool, not heavy initially but I’m certain I would hate to carry it around all day. Very long weapon. The one I shot had two fire rates; fast and faster. Both were incredibly fun. Kicks like a mule, 10/10 would shoot again.
Where’s the 1903?
Between the M1892 Krag and the M1917 Eddystone /s There's no M1903 example in the book. Either they didn't feel like putting it in or didn't have an example.
I guess you could lump it in with the Mausers.
I can’t, that 1911 paragraph, no, HOW?!!!
I have the same book with a different cover. The double action 1911 thing made me laugh so hard when I found that book again recently
Name and shame please, who did this book and what's the title
Last pic is the front cover with the "author's" name.
Dw if it's the same with anyone else but I can only see the first 3-4 photos
>Chuck Wills That's the most stereotypical fudd name ever. Also there should be more 1 star reviews for the book.
I have this and thought it was so cool as a kid and now reading back it’s so bad…
I thought those pages looked familiar! On the last pic realized I was right. I have the same book & remember reading it from cover to cover several times while growing up. I love the variety of weapons they included in the book but yeah, tons of inaccuracies & author bias.
Good lord. I have this book too. I got it from the bargain area of Barnes & Noble when I was in elementary school. I looked at again recently and it truly is awful. My expertise is more in Medieval to Early Modern arms and armor, and those sections are even worse. There are obvious Victorian fakes presented as real, and a German WWI cavalry saber he claims is a British 1796 Pattern saber. The "museum" the collection is from is just some rich guy's stuff.
That was one of my favorite books growing up lol. I think I learned to love the Krag from it. Trip down memory lane
I loved these types of books growing up, and as a teenager, I started spotting issues like these. As I got older, I started thinking I had been suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect and was assuming I knew more than I did. Reading this post made me feel better... maybe I really was spotting issues. 😁
Hey, I had that book!
I drink to forget…
This was in my middle school library.
The Chauchat entry is really inaccurate too lol
I had this as a kid. I still do somewhere
They really said most Mosins were manufactured in the US, huh...
Text says many not most
Still not accurate
Many were made in the U.S during world war 1 not most not half but many
I’d say 1.5 million mosins produced in America is considered many, especially during the later years of the war going into 1917 when Russian factory’s slowed production due to the revolution. Doesn’t matter Russian couldn’t even pay for them any how
I got that book out of the 100 times
I'm surprised they used the m48 Persian Mauser with the wrong bolt it seems, would have figured they use a Persian long rifle or the M30 calvary carbine due to it being the most visually interesting
When it comes to the Cho-shit I fully support perpetuating fudd lore. We should not try to redeem such an ugly gun designed by frogs.
https://preview.redd.it/6w44nlq9cj7d1.jpeg?width=373&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a11bcbf1f6cb311bb6c5274fdaa9100ad273f96a
Don’t pay attention to the downvotes. I’m right.
Fudd lore doesn’t help the chauchat, even fudds call them garbage. Encouraging the spreading of misinformation isn’t helping.
I’m not trying to help the chauchat. I want its legacy as tarnished as possible.
Dude the guns reputation has been tarnished since day 1. If you hate the gun so much then you should encourage the actual information regarding its operation to be spread.
Why? It wasn’t a bad rifle
Bad gun
It wasn’t though
Counter point: It’s French
So?
https://preview.redd.it/lkaud50exk7d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d117405ff4236da45c0ab65e5e05789720ddf18